Re: cctv cameras

["Simon Rafferty" <simonr@xxxxxxx>]

There is a misconception here about digital evidence. Any evidence may be
tampered with, what the court is accepting is the word of the person
presenting the evidence that it is factual and correct, evidence cannot
present itself and therefore whatever state it is in is its true state. If
you do not accept the word of the person presenting the evidence then
whether the evidence is untampered with or doctored its status is
valueless.

Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart Billinghurst
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] cctv cameras


Why what have you seen?

I know that when it comes to gatzo's they have to produce the original's
as digital is not thought to be tamper proof (I may of course be out of
date / just plain wrong)

-----Original Message-----
From:
sentto-1109639-93682-1078442439-stuart=billinghursts.com@xxxxxxx.
yahoo.com
[mailto:sentto-1109639-93682-1078442439-stuart=billinghursts.com@returns
.groups.yahoo.com] On Behalf Of yahoo@xxxxxxx
Sent: 04 March 2004 23:19
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] cctv cameras


Hi,

I know many of you use cctv cameras with capture cards and various
software that has been discussed here before. If you are unlucky and
something terrible happens, is any video capture admissible as
evidence? I am thinking a traditional video recording would probably
be acceptable, but would a non-HA court think that a computerised
solution was open to abuse, e.g. you could edit the capture and change
the date and time; add or remove people from the shot, etc?

Thanks.


UK Home Automation Meet 2004 - BOOK NOW!
http://www.ukha2004.com

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx



_____